Syria thread

[Dinner]

While not helping a single Syrian either.

What are you talking about? The US has been the single largest contributor of food, medicine, and humanitarian relief to Syria since the conflict began.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2013/sep/06/syria-aid-who-gives-how-much

How is that not helping a single Syrian?

[Patroklos]

Because it hasn't hastened the civil wars end one way or the other. There is nothing wrong with feeding refugees, except when it's a poor substitute for preventing a war that will kill 100K two years ago or ending one that has once and for all now.

That's the major problem with the President's strategy he speaks on as I type. He is going to make a strike to say he did for some nebulous and ineffectual punishment based on a humanitarian arguement while ignoring the hundreds dying every day for years and stating explicitly he is doing that on purpose. If he is not going to help decisively then say so explicitly and let the rebels lose, we end up with Assad anyway but without the casualties or a country in ruins.

[C0ckney]

No-one wins, especially the Syrians. I was, and remain in favour of intervention to topple the Assad regime.

why?

more specifically, why do you think a rebel victory would be a good outcome?

[Patroklos]

An Assad victory is a 100% chance of a bad outcome. The longer the was drags on the chance of a beneficial outcome after a rebel victory gets small and smaller. Is the strategy to act when we have no chance of a beneficial outcome?

[C0ckney]

given the actions of the rebels thus far, it seems that a rebel victory would also be a bad outcome. certainly for the alawites, the christians and the other ethnic and religious minorities in syria.

[Dr Strangelove]

Russia is just an arms dealer. They have very little power in the region.

I guess this is one of those jokes that only retarded homeless nutjobs can get.

You guys are awesome.

This is the Middle East, where tradtionally the arms dealer IS the power.
Anyway, the willingness to go to war has been embarassingly weak in the West. Now Russia has proposed a way out for everybody by putting forth th idea that Syria should voluntarily give up its chemical weapons. Syria has endorsed the plan. If this is all legit then at the end of the day Syria gives up a weapon that is more of a liability than an asset. The West is obligated to back off its pressure on Syria, so Assad gets to finish off the rebels.

[regexcellent]

An Assad victory is a 100% chance of a bad outcome. The longer the was drags on the chance of a beneficial outcome after a rebel victory gets small and smaller. Is the strategy to act when we have no chance of a beneficial outcome?

I get the sense a rebel victory would be even worse than an Assad victory. It might not be but what we're looking at is a government that sponsors terrorism but maintains some amount of detente with Israel and controls the country to a reasonable degree, or a government that will probably sponsor different terrorism while also not keeping control of the country.

[kentonio]

why?

Because it's the same post-colonial ****up that we face in countries all across the Middle East, Africa and parts of Asia. We have all these countries that exist because we drew arbitrary lines across regions, putting ethnic and/or religious groups that hate each other together and said 'You're a country now, enjoy'. They were then prevented from sorting out their problems (which would have let to huge bloodshed, and has in many countries) because we supported strong arm dictators who also helped us retain a grasp on local resources and maintain influence at the cost of those people living under horrible conditions of oppression.

So now we get this nightmare problem where we get to chose between one of two revolting outcomes, either we can continue to support dictators who kill and torture their people, or we can help/stand aside as they are swept away and the people end up resolving their own issues through civil war, genocide and perhaps the establishment of new oppressive regimes no longer under our control.

The issue I have with the liberal side on this is that they largely just can't face up to the realities of that choice. They want to sit and hope for a lovely nice outcome where these regions see the democracy and peace in the west and decide that that's a better way to resolve their differences, but when you take regions that have never enjoyed democracy that's a process that is going to take decades or even centuries, and in the meantime we're still expecting those people to live under oppressive regimes.

There is no good outcome to all this. You can pick one of two pretty goddamn horrible outcomes, but if your only answer is not to choose then you're not contributing anything of value. I choose self determination, because at least then the process of improvement begins and we can (hopefully) use aid and influence to prevent the worst excesses, but the reality is still that there will be blood and there isn't a damn thing we can do to prevent it.

[DinoDoc]

Is the strategy to act when we have no chance of a beneficial outcome?

In a fight between Assad and AQ affiliated groups, why are we obligated to act at all? Why not just wish them luck in killing each other? How do we benefit from injecting ourselves into that conflict?

[dannubis]

For very different reasons but I must agree. I don't see the benefit.

[Colon™]

Jihadist groups, of which only al-Nusra has declared allegiance to AQ, are reported to be the most be effective, but the lionshare of rebel fighters still are part of non-Islamist groups. Assad's forces are also still committing vastly more war crimes than the rebels.

[C0ckney]

Because it's the same post-colonial ****up that we face in countries all across the Middle East, Africa and parts of Asia. We have all these countries that exist because we drew arbitrary lines across regions, putting ethnic and/or religious groups that hate each other together and said 'You're a country now, enjoy'. They were then prevented from sorting out their problems (which would have let to huge bloodshed, and has in many countries) because we supported strong arm dictators who also helped us retain a grasp on local resources and maintain influence at the cost of those people living under horrible conditions of oppression.

So now we get this nightmare problem where we get to chose between one of two revolting outcomes, either we can continue to support dictators who kill and torture their people, or we can help/stand aside as they are swept away and the people end up resolving their own issues through civil war, genocide and perhaps the establishment of new oppressive regimes no longer under our control.

The issue I have with the liberal side on this is that they largely just can't face up to the realities of that choice. They want to sit and hope for a lovely nice outcome where these regions see the democracy and peace in the west and decide that that's a better way to resolve their differences, but when you take regions that have never enjoyed democracy that's a process that is going to take decades or even centuries, and in the meantime we're still expecting those people to live under oppressive regimes.

There is no good outcome to all this. You can pick one of two pretty goddamn horrible outcomes, but if your only answer is not to choose then you're not contributing anything of value. I choose self determination, because at least then the process of improvement begins and we can (hopefully) use aid and influence to prevent the worst excesses, but the reality is still that there will be blood and there isn't a damn thing we can do to prevent it.

it's certainly true to say that the borders drawn in the colonial period have caused many problems. however, syria's problems do not stem from its borders, or indeed the fact that several different ethnic and religious groups live in the same state. here is an religious map of syria, with the kurdish areas included.



how would you divide that? the two largest cities (aleppo and damascas) have people from all the religious groups in syria. it's also worth pointing out that while the conflict has been taking on an increasingly ethnic and religious dimension, many secular sunnis continue to support the government. this is probably a combination of some residual loyalty to the state and because they fear the consequences of a rebel victory.

you assume that there are only two choices, and you further, wrongly, assume that refusing to back the rebels is somehow backing the assad regime. this is obviously false. no one, in the west, as far as i know, has argued that we should back the assad regime. the argument is between those who support military action (and these can be further divided into two groups, those want to support the rebels and those who want to merely 'punish' the assad regime for the alleged use of chemical weapons - presumably so that both sides can get back to good, wholesome, butchery with guns, bombs and machetes ) and those who do not want the west to intervene militarily. you are simply presenting a false choice.

you talk about self-determination and democracy. leaving aside the obvious irony of talking about self-determination through western bombs, self-determination for whom? who is offering either? to give but one example, the christian population of homs, pre-war, was 160,000. there are now fewer than 1,000 christians in the city. the othordox church has claimed that the free syria army has been conducting an "ongoing ethnic cleansing of christians". other minority communities have faced bombs and other attacks. neither side is offering democracy, self-determination, or other bromides you care to mention.

so what should we do? for me the only real solution is to provide aid to those affected by the war, both in syria itself and in the neighbouring countries. to be fair, we are already doing this to some extent. at the same time, we (the west) should talk to russia, iran, turkey and the middle eastern states and put pressure on the syrian government and the rebels, to come to the negotiating table.

the military situation is somewhat fluid, but it's hard to see how either side could win an outright victory at present. that is, without significant foreign intervention. civil wars can go on for a long time (ask an angolan). this is the especially true when both sides have foreign backers who are prepared to furnish money and weapons so that their preferred side doesn't lose. we should not play that game, either directly killing people or sending weapons so that others can do the killing. the only decent option is to work towards a negotiated solution.

[kentonio]

DP

[kentonio]

how would you divide that? the two largest cities (aleppo and damascas) have people from all the religious groups in syria. it's also worth pointing out that while the conflict has been taking on an increasingly ethnic and religious dimension, many secular sunnis continue to support the government. this is probably a combination of some residual loyalty to the state and because they fear the consequences of a rebel victory.

Ie a hugely complicated mess that was left without any real solution by the colonial powers and now is a ****storm no-one has a comfortable answer for.

you assume that there are only two choices, and you further, wrongly, assume that refusing to back the rebels is somehow backing the assad regime. this is obviously false. no one, in the west, as far as i know, has argued that we should back the assad regime. the argument is between those who support military action (and these can be further divided into two groups, those want to support the rebels and those who want to merely 'punish' the assad regime for the alleged use of chemical weapons - presumably so that both sides can get back to good, wholesome, butchery with guns, bombs and machetes ) and those who do not want the west to intervene militarily. you are simply presenting a false choice.

Not really, Assad is winning and unless we take action to oppose that then the likelihood is that he will win. Inaction can be a form of support in itself.

you talk about self-determination and democracy. leaving aside the obvious irony of talking about self-determination through western bombs

That's not ironic at all, you can help people achieve self determination without then forcing their future choices. We helped them become oppressed but suddenly helping remove that oppression is supposedly interference?

self-determination for whom? who is offering either? to give but one example, the christian population of homs, pre-war, was 160,000. there are now fewer than 1,000 christians in the city. the othordox church has claimed that the free syria army has been conducting an "ongoing ethnic cleansing of christians". other minority communities have faced bombs and other attacks. neither side is offering democracy, self-determination, or other bromides you care to mention.

There are not two sides, the rebel side is comprised of various different elements of Syrian society. As for the ethnic cleansing, did you not read what I wrote? Their self determination may well involve mass bloodshed as they reform their country into one that suits their people, and I'm all for using all the influence and aid we can to find peaceful solutions to those problems, but not giving them an opportunity to self determine their future just means we're pushing a problem further down the road.

so what should we do? for me the only real solution is to provide aid to those affected by the war, both in syria itself and in the neighbouring countries. to be fair, we are already doing this to some extent. at the same time, we (the west) should talk to russia, iran, turkey and the middle eastern states and put pressure on the syrian government and the rebels, to come to the negotiating table.

You mean the same inaction that has so far led to 100,000 people dying in the civil war?

the military situation is somewhat fluid, but it's hard to see how either side could win an outright victory at present.

Not true, any war can flip very quickly. The rebels could collapse in the next few weeks, or vice versa.

that is, without significant foreign intervention. civil wars can go on for a long time (ask an angolan). this is the especially true when both sides have foreign backers who are prepared to furnish money and weapons so that their preferred side doesn't lose. we should not play that game, either directly killing people or sending weapons so that others can do the killing. the only decent option is to work towards a negotiated solution.

Meanwhile Russia laughs, pours more weapons to the Assad regime and tens of thousands more people die.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

John Kerry is an idiot. Bush was the worst president of the 21st century. Operative word was. But Kerry would have also been terrible. I'm glad he didn't win in 2004.

Fixed this for you.

Likewise we dodged a bullet with Obama v. McCain in 2008. Craptastic v. Insane.

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/321597-mccain-obama-should-weigh-bombing-syria-without-congress